The full confirmation of the horrible news from Armenia makes the heart sick. Not that any of us who know the Turk had any doubts as to the truth of the atrocities at Sassoun. These things are too common. The scale differs, the crime is always the same. And the crime—what is that?

The crime is the establishment—or the re-establishment—of Turkish Mussulman authority over a Christian race. If that is the crime, who are the criminals? On this point I should like to be allowed to say some plain truths, hoping that my English friends will tolerate the candour in others which they never hesitate to practise themselves. The real criminals who are responsible for the atrocities which are now horrifying the civilised world are not the Kurds—who at first got all the blame. The criminals who perpetrated the massacre were Turkish regular troops, commanded by Turkish officers acting in direct obedience to explicit orders from the Turkish Government.

But although the direct complicity of the “Sublime” Porte in these hideous crimes is not disputed even by the Pashas of Stamboul, they are not those with whom the responsibility of these horrors originally lies.

The crime at Sassoun lies primarily at the door of England. It is one of the many disastrous results of that “Peace with honour” which the English Government, represented by Lord Beaconsfield, claimed to have brought back from Berlin in 1878.

That may seem to be a hard saying to those who do not know the facts. To those who do it will be mere truism.

Why is it that the Armenians at Sassoun were left as sheep before the butcher? Why was it that the Sultan and his Pashas felt themselves perfectly free to issue what order they pleased for the massacre of the poor Armenians? The answer is, unfortunately, only too simple. It is because England at the Berlin Congress, and England alone—for none of the other Powers took any interest in the matter—destroyed the security which Russia had extorted from the Turkish Government at San Stéfano, and substituted for the sterling guarantee of Russia the worthless paper money of Ottoman promises. Is it not, then, England’s doing that these poor wretches was (sic) outraged and murdered by the rulers, to whose tender mercies England insisted upon consigning them?

I am not speaking at random.

Let me prove my case: In the Treaty of San Stéfano, the Turkish Government entered into a direct and explicit obligation to Russia to guarantee the security of the Armenians.

Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stéfano runs thus:—

As the evacuation by the Russian troops of the territory which they occupy in Armenia, and which is to be restored to Turkey, might give rise to conflicts and complications detrimental to the maintenance of good relations between the two countries, the Sublime Porte engages to carry into effect without further delay the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security from Kurds and Circassians.

Now, it is obvious that this clause imposed clear and precise obligation, not only upon Turkey, but also upon Russia. If the reforms were not carried out, if the security of the Armenians was not guaranteed, Russia would have been bound to interfere, and would have interfered, to compel the Turks to carry out their treaty obligations.

This article seemed to the British plenipotentiaries to give Russia a virtual protectorate over Armenia, and therefore they insisted upon striking it out. The poor Armenians were forbidden to look for their protection to the strong arm of the Czar. The Turks were delivered from their express obligation to guarantee the security of their Armenian subjects, and it was calmly decreed that the Armenians should be content with Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty. That clause is as follows: —

The Sublime Porte engages to realise without delay those ameliorations and reforms which local needs require in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and the Kurds. It undertakes to make known, from time to time, the measures taken with this object to the Powers, who will watch over their application.

Mark the difference. In place of a positive obligation entered into with the only Power near enough and strong enough to enforce the fulfilment of treaty engagements, there is substituted this engagement, over the execution of which the Powers, in their beneficence, promised to watch, as the execution has not yet begun, the Powers have not been overburdened with much “watching.” “Waiting” rather expresses what they have been doing—waiting for the Turks to begin the fulfilment of the promises which they made to collective Europe sixteen years ago. They are waiting still. Meanwhile the Armenians are being massacred, as, for example, a Sassoun, and not there only. But even this does not exhaust the criminal responsibility of England. You have taken Cyprus as a material pledge for the execution of reforms in Asiatic Turkey. But there are no reforms in Asiatic Turkey. The only effect of the Anglo-Turkish Convention has been to increase the confidence of the Sultan that he can do as he pleases in Armenia, Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty notwithstanding.

England, therefore, is responsible in three ways. She destroyed the Russian guarantee exacted by the Treaty of San Stéfano. She framed the worthless “watching” clause of the Berlin Treaty, and then, to preclude all possibility of effective pressure upon the Turk, she concluded the Cyprus Convention, which established an illegal British protectorate over the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan.

At Sassoun you see the result of that policy. How much longer are you going to allow it to continue? No amount of dispatch-writing, friendly advice, or admonition will improve the condition of the Armenians. Remonstrances are idle. What is wanted is action. But who can act? No Power can occupy and administer Armenia but Russia. Unfortunately, she has no wish and no obligation now to undertake so arduous and so thankless a task. But if she does not do it, who will? I am not in the secrets of our Foreign Office, and according to Reuter’s telegram it has already decided not to intervene. This may be true; yet it seems to me that if Russia were pressed by all the Great Powers to become the direct mandatory of Europe, she might act once more as the generous helper of a Christian nation, but this time without imperilling European concord.

If Europe fails to impose that mandate, the unfortunate Armenians will continue to be massacred, and, I repeat, all responsibility will be at England’s door. That responsibility is honestly admitted by many Englishmen—I may, perhaps, add by the best Englishmen, like your former generous and fearless leader, Mr. Gladstone. Five years ago I tried to plead in England the cause of Armenia and failed. I confess I bitterly felt my disappointment, and told Mr. Gladstone that sooner or later I must return to that question. To this he sent me the following kind reply (dated Hawarden, December 18, 1890):—

I shall feel obliged to you if you can stir up your Government, or ours, about the case of Armenia. It is whispered to us that our remonstrances failed because they are not supported by the other Powers. I quite agree that we ought to lead, but, undoubtedly, the Sultan will do nothing if we are alone.

The case of Armenia is one amongst many where the absence of mutual confidence and understanding between England and Russia has been productive of deplorable injuries.

63, Wimpole-street, December 9. O.K.